Summary: Standardized testing is a very controversial topic surrounding not only our schools, but the foundation of many critical decisions. This article brings up crucial questions, most critically the topic of whether or not a child’s intelligence, achievement and competence can be represented adequately by standardized tests? So much emphasis is put on standardized testing, the preparation for them deemphasizes education and solely focuses on the material on the test. Practice tests and preparation take up so much of the teacher’s time, children are getting the basics of education. Building up so much anticipation for standardized tests and labeling them “grade placement evaluations” puts a lot of pressure on children. Children’s self-esteem are depending on tests which are usually irreverent to curriculum. Tests used in grades 1 and 2 are different from those in grades 3-6. The early tests measure knowledge of pictures and vocabulary while the later stress content. High scores in early testing may not carry over to later testing, however. The scores of standardized testing can increase or decrease a student’s future opportunities.
Reaction: In my opinion, this article brings up very relevant and crucial topics concerning the problems surrounding standardized testing. I was aware that these tests helped evaluating the intelligence of children, but some standardized tests actually determine grade equivalence and sometimes course placement. It is hard to generalize one test that can be used to evaluate all children. Different backgrounds, cultures, religions and socio-economic status’ all play roles in a child’s education. Sometimes rare and severe circumstances influence a child and their abilities. Measuring intelligence through a timed and standard test seems a little fallacious. Rhode Island uses the NECAP’s and the SAT’s to categorize and label children. Concerning the NECAP’s, students are either proficient or below proficiency in certain areas, where as the SAT’s give a numerical value to a student’s capability of taking a standardized test, in my opinion, rather than an intelligence determinant.
Summary:
The SAT’s are a very well known standardized test administered across the country. Some say it is the determinant of whether or not a student will be accepted into a great college. Some say that the SAT’s are an unethical procedure that should be panned altogether. A growing trend in the belief that standardized tests do not suit their intended purpose, to measure intelligence, has been seen at the college level. About 280 of the country’s colleges are making the SAT’s optional rather than mandatory. These colleges are focusing more on evaluating the high schools that students come from, such as GPA and college-prep courses. The problem with the SAT’s is that many people find it an inaccurate and sometimes racist means to measure innate intelligence. The article also brings up the point of whether or not we want a society that rewards genes and what we ‘start with’, rather than a society that measure achievement through one’s lifetime. Statistics show a racial gap between the test scores, as well. Statistics show that white students perform better than black students on the SAT’s. Poor kids going to dismal schools doesn’t explain why rich black kids score worse than white kids. Many believe that these students are conforming to a stereotype that black children do worse on standardized testing.
Reaction: I think that this article brought up a lot of interesting and crucial points. Although standardized testing maintains standards, there are so many different circumstances that alter the standard altogether. It seems almost ridiculous to use one universal test to accurately measure every student’s innate intelligence. The SAT’s do not leave room for an abstract mind; there is no music section or fine arts; children who excel in some areas are being hidden behind their poor SAT scores. My opinion on whether or not the test is racist is less certain than my utter disapproval of standardized test. The article brings up the point that black children are distracted by the fear that they will conform to the stereotype that they do not do well on tests. This is a social problem I believe rather than the tests problem and it is unfortunate that any child should feel inferior to another race. I do, however, believe that standardized testing is an inaccurate way to measure intelligence. When there is a “standard” child, who embodies all the characteristics of what a child is suppose to be, then maybe a standardized test is appropriate. Until then, I believe that students should be measured upon their gifts and strengths rather than their narrowed abilities.
John Cloud, “Should SATs Matter?,” Time, March 4, 2001, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,101321-4,00.html
Standardized Testing and Its Victims
Summary: The Stanford, Metropolitan, and California Achievement Tests (SAT, MAT, and CAT) are designed so that only about half the test-takers will respond correctly to most items. The main objective of these tests is to rank, not to rate; to spread out the scores, not to gauge the quality of a given student or school. Kohn is astonished at the amount of testing done in this country in comparison to other countries; few countries use standardized testing below high school age. He has found that standardized test scores often measure “superficial” intelligence. Kohn believes that these tests measure a shallow approach to learning rather than an abstract and constructive one. For decades, critics have complained that many standardized tests are unfair because the questions require a set of knowledge and skills more likely to be possessed by children from a privileged background. Kohn also points out that the children who seek out test preparation at the ones who are privileged in the first place. SAT-prep classes can run upwards of $900. Ultimately, standardized testing is hurting the children who need the most help. It is promoting a test-driven society who is more concerned with their ends then their means.
Reaction: I agree with many of the points that Kohn brings up in his editorial. Ranking our children on their intelligence rather than rating them and trying to develop systems to encourage their learning disappoints me. We live in a society structured on the right to freedom and equal opportunity, however standardized testing has proven to be a method which simply lessons the opportunity and increases the gap between races. I also believe that standardized tests measure superficial intelligence and do not promote imaginative learning. Children who ask questions during class or engage in reading and relate topics to their lives are overlooked in standardized tests. Rather, it is the students who mindlessly take notes and finish their homework to receive an A who are being praised for their abilities to take tests rather than their flourishing intelligence. Alfie Kohn, “Standardized Testing and its Victims” Education Week, September 22, 2000, http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/staiv.htm
Summary: This article presents another evaluation rather than student achievement. Although standardized tests are usually designed to give numerical value to intelligence, they are also used to assess teacher success in effective learning. If a school’s standardized test scores are high, one assumes their staff is effective. This school must have a positive learning environment which promotes and enhances education. If a school’s standardized tests scores are low, one concludes that their staff is ineffective. This article states that because educational quality is being measured by the wrong yardstick, those evaluations are apt to be in error. The two types of standardized tests are aptitude and achievement tests. SAT’s are an example of an aptitude test, because they are designed to predict how well students are likely to perform in an educational setting. Achievement tests are usually used in school; they evaluate a school’s effectiveness. Popham suggests that standardized tests are not an accurate way to evaluate a school’s effectiveness with relation to the student’s learning and the teacher’s ability. Students learn over time, and to choose one time period and use it as a determinant for their future seems wrong. He also believes that many teachers may be sufficient teachers, but the test itself is not an accurate way to reflect that. He suggests assessing students' mastery of genuinely significant cognitive skills, such as their ability to write effective compositions, their ability to use lessons from class to make cogent analyses of current problems, and their ability to solve high-level mathematical problems.
Reaction: I do not believe that standardized tests measure educational quality or that they are an accurate description of a school’s success. Although there needs to be evidence of whether or not a school is performing adequately or no, the components of standardized tests usually lack the essential criteria for determining a student’s true intelligence or potential. As the article stated, there are two types of standardized tests. Both, I believe, are not fair determinants of intelligence. Aptitude tests are designed to predict how well a student will do, based on a limited amount of information in a timed period. It seems unrealistic to determine one’s potential with a “standard” when everyone has unique specialties. Achievement tests are seen throughout middle school and high school mostly, and are often used to place children in either gifted or special-needs classes. Although I think these tests are necessary, many of them do not allow for specialized learning due to the “standard” nature. A child may have a very abstract intelligence but not score well on a test because his/her answers do not correlate with the “norm”.
Summary:
Schools use standardized tests to determine if children are ready for school, track them into instructional groups; diagnose for learning disability and decide whether to promote, retain in grade, or graduate many students. Schools also use these tests to guide and control curriculum content and teaching methods. However, many of these tests are proven to have less than credible validity in diagnosing issues. They often promote a view of children as having deficits to be corrected, rather than having individual differences and strengths on which to build. These timed tests can also hurt children who take longer to learn, which does not necessarily mean that they are less intelligent than their peers. Tests that measure as little and as poorly as multiple-choice tests cannot provide genuine accountability. Lessons often are narrowed down to focus on solely what will be covered on the test, rather than a broad spectrum of education.
Reaction:
I believe that there needs to be a better system which is more valid and less bias which determine strengths and weaknesses in children rather than ranking them. Often, much of class time is devoted to practicing for standardized tests and focusing only on the content of the multiple choice questions. The format of the test is being practiced more than the wide array of information that is covered throughout one’s schooling. Narrowing the curriculum and “teaching to the test” is also seen in standardized test prep-courses. Having taken one of these classes myself, I know firsthand that the intent of the course is to understand how to take the test rather than understand the material. These standardized tests are evaluating a student’s test ability rather than their intelligence. “How Standardized Testing Damages Education”, Fair Test, August 20, 2007, http://www.fairtest.org/facts/howharm.htm
On Standardized Testing
Summary:Standardized testing is a very controversial topic surrounding not only our schools, but the foundation of many critical decisions. This article brings up crucial questions, most critically the topic of whether or not a child’s intelligence, achievement and competence can be represented adequately by standardized tests? So much emphasis is put on standardized testing, the preparation for them deemphasizes education and solely focuses on the material on the test. Practice tests and preparation take up so much of the teacher’s time, children are getting the basics of education. Building up so much anticipation for standardized tests and labeling them “grade placement evaluations” puts a lot of pressure on children. Children’s self-esteem are depending on tests which are usually irreverent to curriculum. Tests used in grades 1 and 2 are different from those in grades 3-6. The early tests measure knowledge of pictures and vocabulary while the later stress content. High scores in early testing may not carry over to later testing, however. The scores of standardized testing can increase or decrease a student’s future opportunities.
Reaction:
In my opinion, this article brings up very relevant and crucial topics concerning the problems surrounding standardized testing. I was aware that these tests helped evaluating the intelligence of children, but some standardized tests actually determine grade equivalence and sometimes course placement. It is hard to generalize one test that can be used to evaluate all children. Different backgrounds, cultures, religions and socio-economic status’ all play roles in a child’s education. Sometimes rare and severe circumstances influence a child and their abilities. Measuring intelligence through a timed and standard test seems a little fallacious. Rhode Island uses the NECAP’s and the SAT’s to categorize and label children. Concerning the NECAP’s, students are either proficient or below proficiency in certain areas, where as the SAT’s give a numerical value to a student’s capability of taking a standardized test, in my opinion, rather than an intelligence determinant.
Vito Perrone, “On Standardized Testing”, ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, 1991, http://www.ericdigests.org/1992-5/testing.htm
Should SAT's Matter- John Cloud
Summary:
The SAT’s are a very well known standardized test administered across the country. Some say it is the determinant of whether or not a student will be accepted into a great college. Some say that the SAT’s are an unethical procedure that should be panned altogether. A growing trend in the belief that standardized tests do not suit their intended purpose, to measure intelligence, has been seen at the college level. About 280 of the country’s colleges are making the SAT’s optional rather than mandatory. These colleges are focusing more on evaluating the high schools that students come from, such as GPA and college-prep courses. The problem with the SAT’s is that many people find it an inaccurate and sometimes racist means to measure innate intelligence. The article also brings up the point of whether or not we want a society that rewards genes and what we ‘start with’, rather than a society that measure achievement through one’s lifetime. Statistics show a racial gap between the test scores, as well. Statistics show that white students perform better than black students on the SAT’s. Poor kids going to dismal schools doesn’t explain why rich black kids score worse than white kids. Many believe that these students are conforming to a stereotype that black children do worse on standardized testing.
Reaction:
I think that this article brought up a lot of interesting and crucial points. Although standardized testing maintains standards, there are so many different circumstances that alter the standard altogether. It seems almost ridiculous to use one universal test to accurately measure every student’s innate intelligence. The SAT’s do not leave room for an abstract mind; there is no music section or fine arts; children who excel in some areas are being hidden behind their poor SAT scores. My opinion on whether or not the test is racist is less certain than my utter disapproval of standardized test. The article brings up the point that black children are distracted by the fear that they will conform to the stereotype that they do not do well on tests. This is a social problem I believe rather than the tests problem and it is unfortunate that any child should feel inferior to another race. I do, however, believe that standardized testing is an inaccurate way to measure intelligence. When there is a “standard” child, who embodies all the characteristics of what a child is suppose to be, then maybe a standardized test is appropriate. Until then, I believe that students should be measured upon their gifts and strengths rather than their narrowed abilities.
John Cloud, “Should SATs Matter?,” Time, March 4, 2001, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,101321-4,00.html
Standardized Testing and Its Victims
Summary:
The Stanford, Metropolitan, and California Achievement Tests (SAT, MAT, and CAT) are designed so that only about half the test-takers will respond correctly to most items. The main objective of these tests is to rank, not to rate; to spread out the scores, not to gauge the quality of a given student or school. Kohn is astonished at the amount of testing done in this country in comparison to other countries; few countries use standardized testing below high school age. He has found that standardized test scores often measure “superficial” intelligence. Kohn believes that these tests measure a shallow approach to learning rather than an abstract and constructive one. For decades, critics have complained that many standardized tests are unfair because the questions require a set of knowledge and skills more likely to be possessed by children from a privileged background. Kohn also points out that the children who seek out test preparation at the ones who are privileged in the first place. SAT-prep classes can run upwards of $900. Ultimately, standardized testing is hurting the children who need the most help. It is promoting a test-driven society who is more concerned with their ends then their means.
Reaction:
I agree with many of the points that Kohn brings up in his editorial. Ranking our children on their intelligence rather than rating them and trying to develop systems to encourage their learning disappoints me. We live in a society structured on the right to freedom and equal opportunity, however standardized testing has proven to be a method which simply lessons the opportunity and increases the gap between races. I also believe that standardized tests measure superficial intelligence and do not promote imaginative learning. Children who ask questions during class or engage in reading and relate topics to their lives are overlooked in standardized tests. Rather, it is the students who mindlessly take notes and finish their homework to receive an A who are being praised for their abilities to take tests rather than their flourishing intelligence.
Alfie Kohn, “Standardized Testing and its Victims” Education Week, September 22, 2000, http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/staiv.htm
Why Standardized Tests Don't Measure Educational Quality
Summary:
This article presents another evaluation rather than student achievement. Although standardized tests are usually designed to give numerical value to intelligence, they are also used to assess teacher success in effective learning. If a school’s standardized test scores are high, one assumes their staff is effective. This school must have a positive learning environment which promotes and enhances education. If a school’s standardized tests scores are low, one concludes that their staff is ineffective. This article states that because educational quality is being measured by the wrong yardstick, those evaluations are apt to be in error. The two types of standardized tests are aptitude and achievement tests. SAT’s are an example of an aptitude test, because they are designed to predict how well students are likely to perform in an educational setting. Achievement tests are usually used in school; they evaluate a school’s effectiveness. Popham suggests that standardized tests are not an accurate way to evaluate a school’s effectiveness with relation to the student’s learning and the teacher’s ability. Students learn over time, and to choose one time period and use it as a determinant for their future seems wrong. He also believes that many teachers may be sufficient teachers, but the test itself is not an accurate way to reflect that. He suggests assessing students' mastery of genuinely significant cognitive skills, such as their ability to write effective compositions, their ability to use lessons from class to make cogent analyses of current problems, and their ability to solve high-level mathematical problems.
Reaction:
I do not believe that standardized tests measure educational quality or that they are an accurate description of a school’s success. Although there needs to be evidence of whether or not a school is performing adequately or no, the components of standardized tests usually lack the essential criteria for determining a student’s true intelligence or potential. As the article stated, there are two types of standardized tests. Both, I believe, are not fair determinants of intelligence. Aptitude tests are designed to predict how well a student will do, based on a limited amount of information in a timed period. It seems unrealistic to determine one’s potential with a “standard” when everyone has unique specialties. Achievement tests are seen throughout middle school and high school mostly, and are often used to place children in either gifted or special-needs classes. Although I think these tests are necessary, many of them do not allow for specialized learning due to the “standard” nature. A child may have a very abstract intelligence but not score well on a test because his/her answers do not correlate with the “norm”.
W. James Popham, “Why Standardized Tests Don’t Measure Educational Quality”, Using Standards and Assessments, March 1999
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/mar99/vol56/num06/Why_Standardized_Tests_Don%27t_Measure_Educational_Quality.aspx
How Standardized Testing Damages Education
Summary:
Schools use standardized tests to determine if children are ready for school, track them into instructional groups; diagnose for learning disability and decide whether to promote, retain in grade, or graduate many students. Schools also use these tests to guide and control curriculum content and teaching methods. However, many of these tests are proven to have less than credible validity in diagnosing issues. They often promote a view of children as having deficits to be corrected, rather than having individual differences and strengths on which to build. These timed tests can also hurt children who take longer to learn, which does not necessarily mean that they are less intelligent than their peers. Tests that measure as little and as poorly as multiple-choice tests cannot provide genuine accountability. Lessons often are narrowed down to focus on solely what will be covered on the test, rather than a broad spectrum of education.
Reaction:
I believe that there needs to be a better system which is more valid and less bias which determine strengths and weaknesses in children rather than ranking them. Often, much of class time is devoted to practicing for standardized tests and focusing only on the content of the multiple choice questions. The format of the test is being practiced more than the wide array of information that is covered throughout one’s schooling. Narrowing the curriculum and “teaching to the test” is also seen in standardized test prep-courses. Having taken one of these classes myself, I know firsthand that the intent of the course is to understand how to take the test rather than understand the material. These standardized tests are evaluating a student’s test ability rather than their intelligence.
“How Standardized Testing Damages Education”, Fair Test, August 20, 2007 , http://www.fairtest.org/facts/howharm.htm